Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, functioned as a customs broker and had filed bills of entries on behalf of several clients between 2008 and 2012. It had deposited a substantial sum of over Rs. 145 crores towards customs duty for five importers. Subsequently, the company was charged with money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, with allegations of receiving proceeds of crime. A provisional attachment order dated 27 March 2025 was issued against properties associated with the directors. The petitioner sought certified copies of the bills of entry and related customs documents from the Chief Commissioner of Customs to prepare its defence, as the documents in its possession had been destroyed after the statutory preservation period. The Customs authorities refused to provide copies without obtaining no objection certificates from the concerned companies, despite the fact that the petitioner had originally handled those documents. The Enforcement Directorate and Adjudicating Authority required the petitioner to file a written reply supported by documentary evidence. The High Court observed that the petitioner was in a peculiar situation: on one hand, it was required to submit documents in defence, while on the other, the custodian of those documents was unwilling to release them without third-party consent. The court held that the petitioner should not be made to run from pillar to post seeking no objection from its former clients, especially since the petitioner had been the representative of those companies and had processed the documents. The court directed Respondent No.4 to provide duly certified copies of all documents filed by the petitioner while entering bills of entry for the five identified clients during January 2008 to December 2012. The learned counsel for Respondent No.4 agreed to furnish the documents upon receipt of a list from the petitioner. The court set a timeline: the petitioner was to email the list of clients; Respondent No.4 would prepare certified copies within 45 days; if any charges applied, they would be communicated and paid within five days; alternatively, soft copies could be supplied. The petitioner was then required to file its written reply before the adjudicating authority within 75 days of receiving the documents. Importantly, notwithstanding the provisional attachment, the authorities were directed not to proceed further until the petitioner's reply was filed and an order was passed by the adjudicating authority. The writ petition was partly allowed and rule made partly absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Defence Rights and Access to Documents - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections Not Mentioned - The petitioner, a customs broker charged with money laundering, sought certified copies of bills of entry it had filed with customs for 2008-2012 to demonstrate that customs duty was paid and funds were not proceeds of crime. The court held that the petitioner should not be required to run from pillar to post seeking no objection from former clients, especially since the petitioner had handled the documents. The court directed Respondent No.4 to provide certified copies within 45 days and the petitioner to file reply within 75 days thereafter, with no further proceedings until reply filed and order passed. Held that procedural fairness requires access to documents necessary for defence (Paras 4-16). B) Criminal Law - Provisional Attachment - Stay of Proceedings - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections Not Mentioned - The court noted that despite provisional attachment of properties, authorities shall not proceed further until the petitioner's reply is filed and an order is passed by the adjudicating authority. This ensures that the petitioner is not prejudiced while awaiting documentary evidence (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a customs broker charged under PMLA, is entitled to certified copies of customs documents filed by it for the period 2008-2012 to prepare its defence; Whether the provisional attachment and further proceedings under PMLA should be stayed pending provision of documents and filing of reply.
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed. Directed Respondent No.4 to provide certified copies of documents filed by petitioner while entering bills of entry for period 2008-2012 for five clients. Petitioner to email list of clients; Respondent No.4 to prepare copies within 45 days; if charges applied, they would be communicated and paid within five days; soft copies could be supplied alternatively. Petitioner to file reply before Respondent No.3 within 75 days of receipt of documents. Authorities not to proceed further until reply filed and order passed. Rule made partly absolute.
Law Points
- The right to a fair defence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- 2002 includes access to documents previously filed by the accused with customs
- Authorities cannot withhold documents previously handled by a party solely for want of third-party consent when such documents are necessary to prepare a defence
- Writ petition partly allowed directing certified copies of customs documents and staying further PMLA proceedings until reply is filed and adjudicated.
